i at the same time you have to improve the intelligence capabilities of south korea and japan and our capabilities as well. mike knows more about this than i can tell you but the reality is it is a hard target, north korea's tough, not easy to figure out what this guy is going to do as we have been trying to do that and we had some success in trying to penetrate it, we need to improve our intelligence, continue to squeeze on the sanctions and continue to put pressure on china to convince north korea to come to the notion -- negotiating table. one of the most important

things to do is develop a missile shield, and effective missile shield not only using south korea and japan but our own capabilities so that these missiles the take off we have the capability to hidden quickly and make sure we can do an effective job but we have to pay a price for this constant testing they are involved with in the only way to do that is improve our missile capability which is essential to our ability to protect security. >> missile defense in the reagan library, a long history. >> secretary leon panetta is right about this but not only nuclear power but conventional power and to an extent kim jong un has the ability to put america at risk using that normally is a shield but we talk about his imperative for

the maintenance of the regime but he might use that capacity in a way to use the nuclear umbrella as a conventional sword to gain control of other places and exert greater influence, not simply the threat of the use of nuclear weapons but determining those capabilities to use nuclear capacity to further other things besides protection of the regime. >> i asked general mcmaster this, is it okay to go to the olympics? >> yes, of course. just have to run fast. let's turn to iran. in congress, you were one of the congressman who was -- spoke out about iran a lot and all the things they were doing

beyond the nuclear deal. their support of terrorism around the region but if donald trump asked you today is iran in full technical compliance with the randy a what would you tell him. >> the intelligence we have seen indicates they are in substantial compliance with the nuclear provisions of that agreement. and i have told him that. >> as far as other things iran is doing, not part of that deal, it has only increased? >> no doubt about that. the expanded efforts, you need only look at the last few weeks and the efforts of the iranians to influence other places in iraq to see the iranian efforts to be the hegemonic power throughout the middle east continuing to increase, there was a news story that didn't get a lot of attention. i sent notes that forces under his control might in fact

threaten us interests in iraq, the head of the iran revolutionary force, his commander has also indicated an increased willingness to potentially attack us forces in iraq with the consent of the iraqi government and he refused to open the letter, didn't break my heart to be honest with you. what we were communicating to him in that letter is we will hold he and iran accountable for any attacks on american interests in iraq by forces under their control and we wanted to make sure he and the leadership in iraq understood that in a way that was crystal-clear. we are there on an important mission on behalf of the iraqi government and intend to stay as long as the iraqi government wants us there is a continued and important mission. >> when dealing in a region like that doesn't the situation deteriorate working with russia which is providing coverage for iran making it more

complicated? seems like 3-dimensional chess, move one piece and three other pieces are moving. >> i believe policy issues to others but it is incredibly complicated. from an intelligence perspective what we want to ensure that we continue to do is to be in the places we need to be so there's an understanding of the russians intentions, irani in retentions, opposition forces intentions, kurdish intentions and make sure we can deliver for the president and secretary matus and tillerson so they can resolve this issue in a way that benefits america. >> this is one of the biggest changes in the geopolitical since between administrations, the obama administration central focus on iran and its foreign policy and this administration's focus on the gulf states and a different position on iran, you want to comment on that? >> is mike pointed out abiding

by the nuclear agreement, that is pretty much recognized. i had serious concerns about that agreement and i'm sure mike and the president had serious concerns about that agreement but the reality is they are abiding by at least with regards to the issue of developing nuclear weapon that is something we continue to focus on to ensure that we are enforcing that and abiding by it and that is essential. at the same time we do have to address these other areas and it is important that we put pressure on iran with regards to their support for terrorism, with regards to there missile development, with regards to their undermining of regimes throughout the middle east. they are involved in developing and axis of influence in the

middle east from lebanon to damascus and syria to iraq. i am glad intelligence forces are on top of this but i talk to former leader in iraq the other day and the one thing he expressed real concern about is we have been successful in going in and defeating isis and going after the caliphate but what happens is if we begin to reduce our presence in iraq, we went through this before, if we reduce our presence, iran will take advantage of it and they already are and this individual said wherever you go, you see irani and forces trying to play a role in iran and i think it

raises a lot of concerns for the united states to make sure that doesn't happen. iran wants to be a nation even for all their divisions, the tribal differences that we have been through. the reality is they want to have a nation but to have a nation, we have got to be able to support them and try to make sure that they develop the parliamentary and governmental approach that allows each of the segments whether it is sunni, kurds, shia, to participate in the government, that is the only way iraq will find security. >> with respect to jcp 08, we always know what we don't know so are they in substantial compliance, the iran nuclear deal, we don't know what we don't know, we do our best to deliver that intelligence to the community and the related issue as an example, 40 plus missiles and rockets fired by

yemen into saudi arabia. it is remarkable to see how the iranian pr machine hasn't been held accountable. have they done that in any other nation state with a third-party providing assistance, technical and otherwise to another country and fire on this putting them at risk, classic terrorism and the president has directed to deliver intelligence with respect to that. >> you mentioned saudi arabia, we will likely see a new king, the crown prince has taken control of different decisionmaking and changing the dynamics. can i get your thoughts where the kingdom stands and what it looks like in the region? >> sure. a big question. i'm trying to figure out how to put my pick in to begin. some of the transformation you are seeing take place in saudi arabia are the kinds of things

america has been asking saudi arabia to do for decades and are beginning to do that and we should encourage and support it. they have been prepared to work alongside our partners, the israelis, report back against terrorism throughout the middle east, to the extent we can continue those relationships -- >> that is correct. saudi arabia, we have been asking them for a long time to deal with issues the crown prince is trying to deal with in terms of developing a diverse economy, trying to control corruption in the saudi society, trying to basically build a strong nation from the inside, whether his tactics are the right tactics remains to be

seen but his objectives are the right ones. saudi arabia is a key player and i mentioned this to mike before we came on. it is incredibly important that in the middle east where we have failed states, isis, iran, we have got to develop a stronger coalition of countries willing to work together to confront these challenges. the united states can't do it on our own, saudi's can't do it on their own, these other countries can't do it on their own but together, some kind of coalition of countries, arab countries working with the united states, working with israel, turkey, to build a strong coalition that can operate with the joint military headquarters that can target

the terrorists in that region, work together to try to provide stability where necessary in these countries, the arab spring produced a lot of convulsion, we never developed a formula for how to achieve stability in that region. the united states can't do it but certainly the arab countries that are there have a better sense of how to work to establish stability so i think the development of the strong coalition to deal with the challenge from iran, to deal with isis and al qaeda is extremely important and the saudi's frankly are incredibly important to that ability. >> you mentioned donald trump delivering intelligence, you talked before about how you do that. i wonder if you could share how you deliver the intelligence

and how the president receives it and the interaction. >> when i'm in washington and the president is there i deliver the intelligence to him nearly every day. different presidents, i have become an amateur historian how presidents receive their intelligence, different president of chosen to do it differently, some have chosen to do it one way at the beginning but have changed over time. i come in, bring my officers with me, general mcmasters is there as well, that is the team, we deliver the set of things he needs to know happening overnight, the things we think are important to him to know in weeks ahead, to make sure he is fully briefed and use a portion of that time to share what is strategically important to plan the intelligence laid down for months and years ahead. we have a half hour or 45 minutes every day to ask lots

of hard questions as any consumer would, very engaged in the information we deliver, i've seen him rely on the information we provide. >> when you hear the stories that he is losing it or is not with the or is totally checked out, what do you think? >> it is absurd. [applause] >> i will put it in washington terms, it is demonstrably false. i'm a kansas boy. it is not the reality, the team is with him, we are working hard, we tried to provide information he and secretary to listen need, he is incredibly engaged. we have taught him things, he was a new york real estate guy,

spent a lot of time staring at things, he has taught us a lot of things, how to think about economic ideas and consider who has got the money and how to impact decisions across the world, that is the way intelligence agencies out to deliver and consumers should interact. >> back and forth almost every day. >> you were on television recently after the president retweeted those videos and you said it was like playing with fire. talk about that. >> it is dangerous, a dangerous thing to do. god bless mike pompeo for the ability to sit down and brief the president and have the president listen to the intelligence reports, that is

important and i was a little worried about that at the beginning. but if mike is doing that and the president is engaged, that is extremely important for the president being able to do the job. the president cannot operate without intelligence. he has got to know what is going on in the world so thank you for the ability to have developed an approach that is obviously working and appreciate that. the problem of suddenly tweeting and anti-muslim video like that is that once it goes out what it does is it in flames people that are out there and we had very much the same experience in the time i was there when there was koran burnings that took place that

made their way to video and when those koran burnings go out in video it resulted in several demonstrations taking place at various embassies and the problem is that lives can be jeopardized. it is really important the president understand. i'm not sure he fully understood the implications of what he was doing but it is clear that it is not something he should do because when you do that, you tweet something like that out there you don't know what the consequences are going to be and it could involve lives. better not to do that and i hope he will reframe from doing that in the future. twitter makes your job harder. >> for lots of things in the intelligence community. there are days we have good

days and days we -- i know what question you are going to ask. >> an account on twitter makes your job harder. >> i don't know that that is the case. i have seen things the president has put on his twitter account have real-world impact on our capacity to understand what is going on, our adversaries respond to those tweets in ways that are helpful to us to understand command and control issues, listening to how messages are resonating around the world. my son knows my views on social media. it is not an unambiguous good. >> react to this specific thing. >> i don't have much to add. the president in my experience when we talk with the president about the threat from radical islamic terrorism understands it is important that we address

the malign behavior in a way that reflects opportunities to make americans safer, end a story. >> let me comment on the tweeting thing. obviously this will be different from mike's view. as a former chief of staff i cannot imagine what it is like to serve a president who tweets in the morning. the whole purpose of the white house is to develop some discipline in terms of messaging, policy, everybody being on the same page, when you get up and everybody knows what the president is doing, what the message of the day is going to be and everybody is coordinated and when you wake up in the morning if you are chief of staff and have a bunch of tweets out there raising all kinds of hell in different areas it is very upsetting to the operation. you have to figure out how do i

deal with that stuff? it diverts you. i know the president loves to tweet. if i had my way i would take that tweeter and throw it out the window but i understand he likes to tweet but if he is going to tweet he ought to have some policy process to develop what are the policies you want to advance him and let him tweet the hell out of them but at least there is a policy process involved, you are doing this by the seat of your pants and even for example on this video if there is just a check system where he says i want to tweet this muslim video out, what do you think, john kelly, what do you think, mike pompeo? and they raise the concerns. at least if you have some kind of check on the process we

would be a lot better off. i expressed the concern of how do you develop discipline, chain of command, rational policy process in the white house when you have somebody who loves to tweet, gets up at 5:00 in the morning and says whatever the hell he wants to say, it raises a little bit of concern about stability. >> when you have a different view -- [laughter] >> we spent too long on this already. >> i opened the door. >> one last thought. i think the secretary said the world is more dangerous today, more flash points, those preexisted january 20th of this year so message discipline got us to those places. i will leave it at that.

what i mean to say is we should not overattribute the place we find ourselves today to things that may or may not have as much impact. >> a lot of republican presidents exercise a lot of message discipline. >> a partisan way at all, where we find ourselves is the trajectory of post world war ii conflict or post 9/11 conflict, republican and democrat presidents. >> i understand what you are saying in the president's motives in doing that but it needs to be tied to a strategy, you don't just roll a grenade in the room, have things blow up and then not have a strategy for how you deal with it. >> moving on. we have -- [laughter]

>> let me get to a process question about some both of you have dealt with, osama bin laden rate under the obama administration led to what was called at the time a treasure trove of documents. the last day of the obama administration january 19th, the dni released a statement that it had released all relevant documents captured during the bin laden rated that total was 571. mike pompeo released an additional 470,000 documents recovered in that rate. among many others, 255 page handwritten journal of jihad describing how he was much more engaged in all these terrorist groups. my question to you first is why do you think the statement was

made that that was it, 571 documents? >> i wouldn't care to speculate. i will leave it to the previous administration to explain why they released what they released. i put them out because i'm doing my best to be as transparent as i can wherever we find an opportunity to do so in a way that doesn't present risks to american flags or to keep america secure. we reviewed these documents, we felt there might be some learning that could take place if they were released and the risk to american security interests was very low. we did what good government people do and released these documents and let people -- we had done our work and i can't say much about what we found but you can read the public press and what fathers have found. >> during the reelection campaign, president obama said al qaeda was on the run, he

would see it demise before 2020, but we have a rejuvenated donald trump, the group -- affiliates control more territory, isis has taken a hit, al qaeda is still strong. do you think the obama administration underestimated al qaeda, jihadists for probably because of ideological thinking? >> terrorism is a challenge to deal with because it metastasizes. we are dealing with an enemy that is able to be resilience, to make adjustments, to go from al qaeda to isis, and other forms. there are a lot of elements but you have to target the ones you can go after and do an effective job in doing that and we did in the time i was there

as director and as secretary, we went after the leadership of al qaeda, particularly in pakistan and we decapitated their leadership particularly with the osama bin laden rate and we did a good job and interrupted a lot of their planning for attacks as a result, but the reality is al qaeda developed in yemen, isis developed etc. and you have to continue the effort in these other areas, you have got to be able to target the different forms of terrorism that are developing. i think the obama administration in the last few years began to recognize they couldn't just ignore what was happening and counterterrorism capabilities began to be established not only in yemen but north africa and other

places to try to make sure they take on what happened here but the reality is if you don't stick to it, if you suddenly declare victory which nobody should do when it comes to terrorism, you commit yourself to going after each of these elements, as different as they are, that is the only way we are going to be able to win at terrorism. it is going to take a long time. it is not going to happen overnight. we learned there have been mistakes made, we learned a lot from those mistakes. the administration in dealing with basis has done a great job going after isis and the caliphate. the real question is can we go after book around, can we go after our shabaab, al qaeda, and continue to do an effective job?

is going to be a challenge and it will require resources and the biggest concern that has been registered at this forum is going to be the issue of whether we have sufficient resources to provide counterterrorism capabilities we are going to need in order to defeat terrorism. >> two weeks ago the new york times lead terrorism reporter suggested the obama administration downplayed intelligence of the threat from al qaeda. is it right? >> that certainly wasn't true when i was there. what happened after i left, who knows? when i was there and we presented evidence about the threat from al qaeda and the ability to go after those targets the president supported that effort and supported our operations. >> secretary panetta mentioned africa. we are engaged in africa militarily. we are doing on the it intelligence side, talk about

the threat in africa broadly and what you are seeing from different groups. >> there is a history of terrorism, would have been under director and secretary panetta's time as well and they did good work. we can't say enough about the amazing work under director panetta's leadership to decapitate al qaeda leadership. it was remarkable, offices work for me today, america benefiting from their good work, africa is the same way. it is a constant challenge, it is changing because as the caliphate has been largely defeated there is great risk with basis and others using platforms in niger and somalia and libya that puts america at risk which is what the president asks us to look at and we are interested in terror in all places, mostly which prevents an external threat coming to the homeland and africa is no different in the risk that it presents today and

as isis makes version 3.0 or 4.0 africa is one of the places in addition to mindanao and south asia we figure we will find them. >> a few more minutes. i heard you talk about the threat from cyber and what is involved in the world. i would like to have both of you address that and talk to the american people about what we are seeing. >> we tend to underestimate the threat from cyber and i don't know if it is because we are wrapped up in our cell phones are wrapped up in our computers. i don't think somehow it can be used as a weapon but it can be used as a weapon and very effectively. we have seen what has happened with cyber on interrupting services, we have seen what

cyber can do in stealing intellectual property. we have seen what cyber can do in hacking and stealing personal information but the reality is cyber can be used to destroy. iran developed something a deployed against saudi arabia. 30,000 computers were shut down, destroyed. take the same kind of virus and apply it to our computers that run our electric grid system or our financial system or government systems or chemical systems or water systems or transportation systems you can paralyze this country, you don't have to send a note to obama or f-16s or boots on the ground, you can sit at a computer and deploy a virus. that is the kind of threat we live with it is extremely important to wake up to that threat, develop the defenses necessary to confront that and develop the offenses system as well in order to make sure we

go after an enemy that is trying to target us on cybercapability. without getting into the classified can you quantify the cyberthreat numbers or cyberthreat day today? >> i can't, don't how to qualify but it is becoming more rampant because it is becoming increasingly cheap, the costs to conduct those attacks have been greatly reduced. secretary panetta described it well. i would think -- one thing to talk about the tool, cyber, and other thing is fibers of actors, one of the things increasingly presented a threat that wasn't as rampant as when leon was the directors we are not only facing the cyberthreat of nationstates but non-nationstates as well, fibers of the capability of isis and al qaeda, groups like wikileaks and others present real threats to america and the

intelligence community has focused on state actors, our capacity to infiltrate others intelligence agencies and take down their networks was often based on a nationstate model no longer applies, individuals, small groups can do a lot of damage using this tool in a way only nationstates could do damage 15 or 20 years ago. >> fiber, north korea, radical islamic terrorism. it is tuesday. of those three, do you rank them? >> i don't care to rank them. they are the three number ones. >> i always had a good scotch at the end of the day. water. >> on the cyberthreat there has been a lot of focus in reaction to the election, is the us

doing enough to counter russian meddling and disinformation in europe, around the world? is the us doing enough? >> the question is always no. there's a great deal more than we can do if the threat is real, talking to my european counterparts every week, it is russia russia russia, information warfare, call it what you will, physical interference as well, these threats are very real, we have made progress assisting them, protecting elections in the last we 10 months, we have done good work alongside them so we not only have russian information a lot of others not just russia engaged in active measures against western democracy around the world. >> we are in the era of hybrid war and the ability to use

cyber is part and parcel of the effort to destabilize other countries, is becoming not only more effective, it is becoming the kind of tool of preference because it is a way to do it that doesn't necessarily cost lives. it can be very disruptive. it is incredibly important having been attacked the way we were that we develop defenses to make sure it doesn't happen again and work with other countries to develop defenses. the russians are going to do this. they saw what we did here and they will do it in catalonia and elsewhere wherever there are elections. they will try to influence elections by using cyber so we are going to join with allies developing effective ways of making sure that doesn't

happen. >> i want to get both of you to weigh in on the cia, and working with men and women there, something we don't know about interaction and characterize it. >> cia.gov is where you apply. and to be part of the finest fbi service the world has ever known. i stay that half jokingly, looking for the next set of people who come to national security, and enormous opportunity to excel. at the most extraordinary level, political noise is something they put to the side so they can deliver the truth,

an incredible privilege. >> i couldn't concur more. the american people have to understand these are professionals that work at the cia. they have a job to do and they do it. one of the more satisfying experiences in government to work at the cia exercise, they know their jobs and they do it. the president of the united states, and once he says they do it they do it. it is a self-contained our predation. and the intelligence forces. >> i think it is the army. >> you can put that to music for deployment.

a couple questions here for folks writing in. and the syrian kurds with arms and assistance or not. if we throw allies under the bus when we are done with how do we continue to operate successfully in the middle east. >> we are 0-1. >> i concur throwing allies under the bus is bad form. that is not the predicate of the question but -- >> let's try this one. should the cia take action against hospital nation this as a means to avoid war.

>> to achieve america's objectives, in a way that diminishes any risk to americans whether that was americans in the homeland or brave men and women who were part of the united states military and the primary function, and to achieve their objectives. and actions around the world. >> the director of the cia, president of the united states, secretary of defense, primary mission is to protect the american people. that is what it is about. if you get intelligence that somebody gets confirmed intelligence that will happen, you don't just sit back and wait for it to happen. you have an obligation to try to make sure it doesn't happen.

in order to protect this country you not only have a good defense but also a good offense. >> does the us intelligence community have an interrogation program. can you describe it? >> the cia performs its functions. and our officers, you have seen the movies, they are fantastic movies, we are under the rule of law, every we do. i run a good-sized law firm, you would agree.

and we don't lose the american people's trust. the rules that have been laid down by congress and guidance provided by the president of the united states and we will always do that. that is the tradecraft, and asking questions. that is something i can unequivocally say is not true, there's nothing sinister, complying with rules of law. [applause] >> former representatives and executive cabinet members and a position in the intelligence agencies do the president's past comments on credibility of the intelligence community and encourage our adversaries?

leon panetta. >> me? wasn't addressed but figured it was your turn. >> i thought -- >> it is very important the president of the united states is supportive of the intelligence services, intelligence services are critical to providing intelligence that a president needs and that is what they do, dedicated to doing that and it is important for the president of the united states to be supportive of that effort and the president started on the wrong foot criticizing our intelligence agencies and that sends the wrong signal not only to our intelligence agencies but our allies but he has come

back. the fact that the president now clearly does respect the work there intelligence services does. i hope he will continue to be supportive. >> i am an engineer by training, fact and data guy, i read the stories, facts and data. whenever i -- intelligence i need to deliver, and given the truth the best we do. we asked for increased authority to perform function ways that are more robust taking more risks and in each case the president provided that. we have asked for resources, a little bit of money and resources every time the president says you bet i'm in full support of you. the president's relationship with not only this but the

intelligence community as evidenced by the fact that it is unequivocally supportive. >> various digital espionage tools devastating for the intelligence community or a large segment of it. are those assessments accurate? >> won't comment about any particular data set but one of the things you put for personal -- never missed an opportunity and the last thing we can tolerate is a secret we stole. it is unacceptable and our duty to protect them and go after those to prosecute them in the bounds of the law in every way

we can. and to protect our officers. and classified information, safe and secure, less confident about that, make sure we protect this information, we owe it to the american people. >> a national security threat. >> you need go no further than the release of documents by manning to see the risk it presents to the united states of america. >> i am sure mike can't go into the particulars but let me tell you how damaging it is when you get somebody that reveals secrets that indicate the kind

of methods used in order to get information basically telling the enemy how do you get information and you are exposing our spies come our assets, our methods and the result is you have to start from scratch, you have to rebuild it and sometimes it is not that easy so the people that reveal these secrets are not heroes, they are traitors. [applause] >> we will wrap up. >> iran supporting al qaeda, would you assess support has increased or decreased in the past year? >> here is what i can say. it is a complex relationship between al qaeda and tehran.

as multiple powers inside the game. and the complexity of who might be working with al qaeda. and and for iran and al qaeda. and and the former director's question right there. >> we have been lucky with a

lot of questions. >> a final chance to wrap things up in this great forum at the reagan library and final thoughts as you go to your day job. that tuesday sounded tough. >> secretary panetta was one of the first phone calls i made, you have been so generous with your time, i called repeatedly to solve problems quickly, nearly all the former directors have been generous and helped me be better whether they work for democrat or republican president, a mission to keep america safe is one that leon and i hold in our hearts and it is an honor to be part of that and to work alongside colleagues who are aimed at delivering for the president to keep america safe. thanks for inviting me to the conference which i grew up not far from here and --

>> it is a requirement -- >> amen. the vow at the end of the name. >> let me express my thanks to the reagan library and all those associated with the defense forum. we have to understand the responsibility all of us have, and to protect our country and the security of this country. it is not easy one of my gripes very frankly is we are dealing with a dysfunctional washington into dysfunctional congress in terms of their ability to work

together. it impacts on our national security. republicans and democrats are not working together to deal with major problems facing this country. it impacts on our security. this is a moment in time this kind of defense forum has to convey an important message that we have a responsibility to work together to make sure we protect this great country of ours. we have a great defense force, a great intelligence capability but it isn't worth a damn unless the american people are working together to support what they do. thank you for your service and thank you for attending. >> let me end where i began with the fact secretary leon panetta is the last person to go from cia director to secretary. thank you very much, i really appreciate it, thank you all.

[applause] >> donald trump's nominee to be health and human services secretary testifies that a confirmation hearing today. he will take questions from members of the senate finance committee. the former eli lilly executive has testified before the health committee. live coverage start at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. the international spy museum and new york times look at media coverage of russia and the 2016 russia investigation. live coverage at 6:45 eastern, also on c-span3.

you can follow live coverage of both of these eventss online at c-span.org and the free c-span radio apps. >> sunday night on afterwards georgetown university law professor peter edelman look that way the courts penalize, re-excessive fines and fees in his book not a crime to be poor. the criminalization of poverty in america. he is interviewed by hank johnson. >> an issue in terms of the war on drugs or the victims of the war on drugs. how did poverty play into that? >> what happens to families, what happens to the men who have been locked up in all the collateral consequences, and 40,000 laws across the